The GoPro kit is $5,000. The workflow is incredibly complex, requiring synchronization and stitching of 6 separate videos (6 sd cards) and a very powerful computer. It is heavy and cumbersome.

The best prosumer alternative is the Kodak 360 4K kit - two cameras shooting 4K. It is $899, and comes with an RF remote that starts and stops both cameras, free stitching software and the frame you need to shoot 360 with the two cameras. You set them to shoot at 2880x2880 (that is 4K if you do the math), and then the software synchs and rec-linearizes. It is small and light and can be set up in seconds.

Here is what a 360 video from the cameras looks like so you can see the quality:

Kodak 360 4K Video: 360 Campus Tour on Vimeo.

Be sure to select 4K for viewing (regardless of what you are viewing on)..

Here is the YouTube version that allows you to scroll around the vistas with your mouse or finger, or better, in a VR viewer, look around with your eyes:

https://youtu.be/qdqh_O_6qzQ

Again, be sure to select 4K for viewing.

Here is what my kit looks like folded up:

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj572/markr042/20160423_095314_zpsma90wyet.jpg (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/markr042/media/20160423_095314_zpsma90wyet.jpg.html)

Here is the kit fully extended:

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj572/markr042/20160423_091704_zpso80abcgt.jpg (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/markr042/media/20160423_091704_zpso80abcgt.jpg.html)

https://youtu.be/qsPirdJkpPA

I guess that begs the question: Is camera movement a good thing in VR? I thought it tended to make viewers nauseous.

I guess that begs the question: Is camera movement a good thing in VR? I thought it tended to make viewers nauseous.

A good question.

Try this out and let us know:

https://youtu.be/eAmPwa7yLMI

Choose 4K.

I definitely see some use in shooting real estate with this device but it also depends how it handles lower light situations, your sample on vimeo is nice and sharp but I see no difference between 1080p and 4k, except for the fact that 4K has buffering issues but 1080p does not, my screen is also only 1080p so selecting 4k does not have any benefit in my case.

The youtube video looks very soft in comparison, at 1080p and 4k, both look equally soft. The viewing experience is ofcourse much more fun then on vimeo.

I definitely see some use in shooting real estate with this device but it also depends how it handles lower light situations, your sample on vimeo is nice and sharp but I see no difference between 1080p and 4k, except for the fact that 4K has buffering issues but 1080p does not, my screen is also only 1080p so selecting 4k does not have any benefit in my case.

The youtube video looks very soft in comparison, at 1080p and 4k, both look equally soft. The viewing experience is ofcourse much more fun then on vimeo.

I posted both the Vimeo link and the YouTube link to illustrate the issue of the trade-off between resolution and immersion. The 4K video uploaded is exactly the same for both. It has quite nice resolution. The difference is that to get the ability to move around with YouTube (the fun) you are seeing a blown up segment of the original video wherever you look, so there is less resolution on the screen. For each blown up segment to be 4K, the underlying resolution of the video must be more than 4K. Right now YouTube requires that the uploaded 360 video be only 4K (3840 x 2160), which is what my video is.

The sensor is BSI and only 12 megapixels (1/2.3"), so it is supposed to be better than the GoPro Hero 4 Black in dim settings.

I think 360 VR is also very useful for vistas (I get that the commercial benefit for that is less). The alternatives are a fisheye lens, which distorts, or panning, which produces blur and other artifacts. 360 VR does not distort like fisheye and there is no panning by the camera. And, the viewer gets to choose what to look at, just as in real life. There is nothing more boring than static shoots of, say, the Grand Canyon. The effect of the GC is precisely its vastness, which even the human eye cannot see and appreciate if kept rigid focusing on one place.

What about use for a wedding in a big church or outdoors in a setting with an amazing vista? Getting the entire audience and wedding party in the full context (if nice) might be something appreciated. It really recreates the experience of being there. Couples pay for getting nice settings (beaches, mountains, beautiful churches). But most wedding videos do not capture that well.

What about use for a wedding in a big church or outdoors in a setting with an amazing vista? Getting the entire audience and wedding party in the full context (if nice) might be something appreciated. It really recreates the experience of being there. Couples pay for getting nice settings (beaches, mountains, beautiful churches). But most wedding videos do not capture that well.

If it's as soft as I can see now on youtube plus the fact you can only see it on youtube and the buffering issues I get in 4K it's more a gimmick to me, just like 3D as that last one also requires special glasses and a suitable tv but at least has more resolution and can be integrated better in a wedding video, I can't imagine doing a entire 360vr wedding video because you will loose your audience while they look around. Where I live there is no market for this kind of thing at weddings, brides don't want to be able to watch around by themselves, that's my job, I am their eyes and show them what matters :)

If it's as soft as I can see now on youtube plus the fact you can only see it on youtube and the buffering issues I get in 4K it's more a gimmick to me, just like 3D as that last one also requires special glasses and a suitable tv but at least has more resolution. Where I live there is no market for this kind of thing at weddings, brides don't want to be able to watch around by themselves, that's my job, I am their eyes and show them what matters :)

Aha, 360 video is a threat to videographers with talent! :) But they are not mutually exclusive - one is just a more extensive record, the other is a work of art and a record.

More seriously, the 360 videos are meant for smart phones. On a 70" UHDTV, the YouTube 360 video looks ridiculous and has no benefits.

You do not need special TV's, the goggles or special equipment to benefit unlike for 3D. So anyone can benefit without any investment. On the smartphone you can either use your finger to move around or move the phone (tilt up down, move right left) to see different views. On the small phone screen the YouTube videos look fine in terms of resolution. 4K video is meant for big screens. This is really something completely different, and I bet many wedding videos are shared and viewed on cell phones anyway (much to your dismay).

That's just my point, I don't want people to watch around and wander of in my weddingvideos, compare it with a movie, they might do a focus shift to guide the viewers eye because they want to show something, imagine the viewer looking what is going on on the backside of the camera and missing whatever the director was planning to show.

Or I might frame a shot in such a way that it looks beautiful during brideprep, maybe just outside my frame there is a lot of garbage and other stuff I don't want the viewer to see, so in 2D I get to choose the best camera angle of a bride getting makeup applied and in 360vr the viewer might look to the right where the door to the toilet is eventhough I want them to look at the bride, see what I mean? :)

I bet many wedding videos are shared and viewed on cell phones anyway (much to your dismay).

Ofcourse they are and especially the trailers I make which look very detailed on smartphones, I consider that kind of viewing THE most important part of free advertsisment but I want to tell a story with my trailers which I never could do with 360VR, it will look the worst way possible with everyone looking at a different direction then I had in mind and missing every kind of important action because they might look at the wrong direction, Every composition I pick has meaning, it's framed in a specific way for a reason, with 360vr it's just glorified cctv and even your uncle bob could do that, no special skill required.

If it was used to sell houses I can relate to that, in that case you want the viewer to look around, just plant the camera in a central fixed location and give them the time to watch around and them move to another room or maybe during extreme sports like mounted on the helmet of a skydiver but it doesn't work like that for a wedding video.

I see a lot of potential with this new "smartphone / youtube / facebook generation" (maybe many of us don't like it, but it IS here) ... soon another contender ..... waiting for the price:

Nikon KeyMission 360 | 4K Ultra HD 360-Degree Action Camera (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/action-cameras/index.page)

.... regards

In the demovideo on the nikon site you can also see it's clearly targeted to the sports enthusiast and there it has a great benefit being able to look around while mounted on a bike, kajak etc. If they manage to keep it between 500 and 1K it will sell really well, the The GoPro kit Mark mentioned which was 5K is more for the professional user/videograher.

Hey Noa, I believe you have to think differently to produce VR. Your palette is a sphere rather than a 2D rectangle and you are free to direct (or misdirect) the viewers attention where you want. I see a lot of possibilities to produce things you have to watch multiple times to take in everything that is happening, particularly where important things to a story occur. It will be interesting to see what creative people can do with wedding VR other than a 2D film shot in 360.

Besides that Nikon camera there is a streaming camera call Orah coming out, a tad spender than the Nikon but not requiring additional computing hardware. A wedding related product might be Google Cardboard viewers customized for the customer to hand out as gifts, with a stream broadcast during the reception for guests to watch with their smartphones.

The Orah 4i is mainly for live streaming and has lower quality than the Kodak 360 4K and presumably the Nikon (which will not be available until October at the earliest):

From the Orah specs:

1. Video resolution for each of the 4 lenses is 2048 * 1536 pixels, far less than 4K (3840 * 2160).

2. The maximum total bitrate is 25 Mbps (that for the Kodak is over 60 Mbps for each camera/view (two)). 25 Mbps is way too low for 4K video of any kind.

3. The camera alone weighs over 1 lb (17 oz). The required processing unit weighs an additional 6 pounds. This is not really a portable unit in the sense of carrying it for travel. Indeed it appears you need to connect it to an AC power outlet!

It is designed for live broadcast (though it does also record to an sd card); hence all the resolution and bitrate compromises. Not for the rest of us.

The Nikon holds promise of being (at best) at least as good as the dual Kodak, but there are no detailed specs so it may not

Yes definitely a different use case than the Kodak or Nikon. I think the stitched size was 4800x2400. No idea how many degrees in the fov.

It will be interesting to see what creative people can do with wedding VR other than a 2D film shot in 360.

It was also interesting to see what creative weddingvideographers would do with 3d and yet, in my country at least, it never took off, even when the market was saturated with 3d tv's. I actually see 3D as a much better option to enhance a weddingvideo of giving people the feeling they are "there", you can use higher end camera's, you still get to choose your shots, frame it in a way helps the viewer to relate to whatever you are trying to tell.

360vr however where the viewer can swipe their phone to look around, well, first of all it's the investment that needs to be made and second I don't see any of the current options work well in low light conditions like candle lit only venues and if you ever have shot any wedding, you know how important a camera low light performance is. Although I too would be interested to see any videographers attempt to make something out of it, I am almost certain it will be just a fad, just like that weddingvideo I saw a while back shot on iphones only, looks cool but only for a while. For uses in sport however, especially extreme sports I"m sure these devices will sell like hot cakes.

It was also interesting to see what creative weddingvideographers would do with 3d and yet, in my country at least, it never took off, even when the market was saturated with 3d tv's. I actually see 3D as a much better option to enhance a weddingvideo of giving people the feeling they are "there", you can use higher end camera's, you still get to choose your shots, frame it in a way helps the viewer to relate to whatever you are trying to tell.

360vr however where the viewer can swipe their phone to look around, well, first of all it's the investment that needs to be made and second I don't see any of the current options work well in low light conditions like candle lit only venues and if you ever have shot any wedding, you know how important a camera low light performance is. Although I too would be interested to see any videographers attempt to make something out of it, I am almost certain it will be just a fad, just like that weddingvideo I saw a while back shot on iphones only, looks cool but only for a while. For uses in sport however, especially extreme sports I"m sure these devices will sell like hot cakes.

I am confused. It is 3D that requires expensive investment by both your clients to view (glasses, special TV's) and by the videographer - what "high-end" 3D camera exactly do you have in mind? The need for special equipment that was uncomfortable is precisely why it failed, apart from the fact that most videographers do not fully understand how to shoot 3D. Shooting 3D that is good is very difficult.

Viewing 360 requires no investments by clients, if they have a smartphone or computer (what clients do you have that do not?). 360 video is a supplement to the artistic shots, not a replacement. It's a gimmick, a fun novelty - but such things sell. And the expertise needed to use by the videographer is far less than that needed to make effective 3D video. Indeed, it is also not taxing, since it can be set up in one place turned on and just left for a period of time.

Example: At the ceremony the 360 camera is in the middle of the church (a better-lit venue than the hokey lit after-parties). The bride and groom can then see afterward not only their actions at the altar (from the back) but also the live reactions (or not) of all of their guests during the ceremony, focusing on whomever they want to look at. Enjoying many viewings because there are so many new things to look at and notice each time. Much better than setting up a GoPro, which would give them a lower-quality distorted (fisheye) view.

No way that threatens the artistic video that is also supplied. If you say, and for $xx more, I can supply a 360 video of the ceremony, you might very well get a lot of yeses. It also insures that nothing gets missed (in the mind of the client), and is a lot more fun and immersive than a GoPro that many videographers employ. No one would want the 360 video instead of your artistic version; it's a bonus to offer that is not very costly to produce. It will be seen on a cellphone screen, so it does not have to meet the quality standards of your normal videos, and they would not expect it to.

I also cannot see how 360 video is useful for sports, unless the camera is put in the middle of the field. It is most practically useful for wide scenics, so you can look around at them just like in real life, and that are hard to capture with any lens that is not distorted fisheye or by nauseating panning. 360 videos give you wide vistas without distortion, and immerses the viewer in that environment.

I agree low light is a challenge, but maybe for ceremonies this is not a big challenge.

It is 3D that requires expensive investment by both your clients to view (glasses, special TV's)

3d tv are not "special", there was a point where about every tv in store was "3d" ready so the possibility is that many have a 3d tv which they either never use for 3d or maybe hired a film once to see what it is about but most just use it as a regular tv. Even I have a 3d ready tv that never has been used for viewing 3d, it was just a cheap but good model on sales that showed good "2d".

what "high-end" 3D camera exactly do you have in mind?
I never followed 3d cameras because it did not interest me at all, but a quick google showed something like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images2000x2000/Panasonic_AG_3DP1GJ_Integrated_Twin_Lens_3D_865849.jpg and while it's overkill for a wedding I take it that the same kind of solutions exist for other cheaper but still "high end" camera's, like a dvx200 type of camera.

The need for special equipment that was uncomfortable is precisely why it failed

I never was a fan of 3D but my point is that if I had to choose, a wedding shot in 3d would for me be a better experience then a 360vr wedding regardless of the fact what investments need to be made. And speaking of investments, those gopro 360vr solutions also cost an arm and a leg if you want the good stuff.

Example: At the ceremony the 360 camera is in the middle of the church
The camera in the middle of the church will get the most boring view ever imaginable, you pick one spot and you can look around for an hour, well, wow....not. :)

If you say, and for $xx more, I can supply a 360 video of the ceremony, you might very well get a lot of yeses.
I don't believe in that, sure there always will be people with enough money thinking, why not, look at it once and then never again because it doesn't make any compelling video, just boring one point of view look around shot that makes you fall asleep after a minute of watching a ceremony, the only 360vr I will ever be viewing is when someone who performs extreme sports attaches it to their helmet, there I do see the advantage.

Sorry, you can't convince me, maybe I"m too old to be hip and to understand these kind of fads, when applied to weddings. 360vr has many advantages for specific applications like mentioned before (extreme sports, or when you sell houses etc) but weddings don't fall into that same category if you ask me but I"m probably wrong, who knows :)

Found one! :)
I have all the respect for the videographer for doing this so no bad word about his effort but common, it's incredible soft, at the ceremony I can't see any reaction of anyone, I get a boring wide angle overview so you see everything and nothing, there are some very boring point of views in there, the bridesmaids sitting on the ceremony chairs looking at the bride while she is doing a photoshoot and I had to look around to see what was going on, what was the benefit in that? The groom talking to the camera about his bride, you know what I was looking at? Right, what was behind the camera, I wasn't listening to what he was saying at all, I was on a merry go round enjoying the back view and being totally distracted from what really mattered.

The only thing I thought looked cool was when the bridesmaids where standing around the camera and talking to it in turns so you could follow them but ofcourse you could get distracted by that one standing on the opposite side that was not speaking at that moment but who had the biggest boobs.



beautiful wedding video in 360 VR! - YouTube

Found one! :)
I have all the respect for the videographer for doing this so no bad word about his effort but common, it's incredible soft

Given the shadow of the device, I think it was shot with the Theta S, and so it is not surprising it is very soft not to mention having bad color. I would be embarrassed to give that video to anyone, let alone someone who paid.

I appreciate your reaction, given you are a real professional who shoots great video and is also on top of technical developments. I would only worry that your interest in a 360 video is not the point - it is the clients'. Even if its a fad, it is not a big investment for the videographer (although using a Theta S is not a good idea to save costs). I also get that having a quality standard is important. There are wedding photographers who use GoPros...

The camera in the middle of the church will get the most boring view ever imaginable, you pick one spot and you can look around for an hour, well, wow....not. :)
It doesn't all have to be 'ART' there is plenty of room for documentation too. People love the crappy out of focus snapshots or shaky video footage of their kids & pets. I can see people viewing the wedding years later & scrolling round the church looking at all the guests seeing new things each time when watching people who might be long dead. My only concern would be standards & the ability to still view the 360 VR video in 30 years time.

To me the Kodak 360 version is unacceptable soft in the youtube version for any paid work and not sure if the gopro versions are any better? I only see it being used as a standalone paid option at a wedding, so still filming with normal camera's and edit and deliver as normal but give the option of a 360deg field of view at the ceremony, whoever wants to watch around a full hour ceremony from a fixed position is another question, it just doesn't add anything that would be worth paying for.

I sooner see guests taking such a thing with them to get fun shots, I already see gopro or smartphones on sticks at about every wedding I shoot.

I can see people viewing the wedding years later & scrolling round the church looking at all the guests seeing new things each time when watching people who might be long dead.

That's just it, you can't see anything, most of the time it's blurry soft very wide field of view from one location. You will get much better coverage from a normal camera.

People love the crappy out of focus snapshots or shaky video footage of their kids & pets
Yeah, but sell it like that to your clients? That's why I think it will serve a better purpose if one of the guests has such a thing with them at the wedding to dance around it when they are drunk. But as a guest reaction camera it might do fine.

To me the Kodak 360 version is unacceptable soft in the youtube version for any paid work and not sure if the gopro versions are any better? I only see it being used as a standalone paid option at a wedding, so still filming with normal camera's and edit and deliver as normal but give the option of a 360deg field of view at the ceremony, whoever wants to watch around a full hour ceremony from a fixed position is another question, . it just doesn't add anything that would be worth paying for



If you view the 360 VR video on a cellphone or using VR goggles (which is what the purpose is), the sharpness is much less of an issue.

Yes, certainly an add-on option. But your conclusion "it just doesn't add anything that would be worth paying for." is not based on anything but your own guess (and maybe own preferences). There are no facts about demand for this completely new product. What counts is what your clients would like. You can "warn" them about how the video is best viewed on... They can refuse, or they can try it because it's the new thing and it is fun.

Btw, 3D videos are also very compromised in terms of resolution using any practical 3D camera. neither lens produces 4K, and often the video is sbs with half HD resolution. People do not notice because of the added dimension of depth. They don't notice window violations either, that real 3D videographers are obsessed about. It's the same for 360 VR - they don't expect high resolution, which is certainly not the only characteristic that matters for video. And it will make your "real" video look even better :).

I have found more "professional" wedding videos shot with 360 cameras posted on Youtube. One guy hung a single Kodak 360 4K from the ceiling with the lens pointed down. I don't know how they process their videos; the softness may be the result of bad processing too. The Kodak stitching software will stitch the individual pairs of clips at a high bitrate and then merge the 360 videos produced *without recompression."

do you need a special app to view this on a phone? On my windows phone I can't look around, I just get the entire fixed frame.

I just looked at more 360vr weddings on my pc and they all look horribly soft and boring, if this ever is going to succeed for weddings the resolution needs to be a lot better plus if you could zoom in without resolution loss, like you can do with 4K in a 1080p project, only then it will be more interesting because the ultrawide shots you have now show nothing in detail if placed in a large room, you just experience everything from a to far distance and everyone is almost unrecognizable.

I also found one wedding where the photog had it mounted on her dslr and walked around with it, it was fun to see who was shooting the clip because I could look back right into her face, the last thing I want my clients to see :)

Hey Noa, I believe you have to think differently to produce VR. Your palette is a sphere rather than a 2D rectangle and you are free to direct (or misdirect) the viewers attention where you want. I see a lot of possibilities to produce things you have to watch multiple times to take in everything that is happening, particularly where important things to a story occur.

For me (as a millennial), I'm really excited about seeing things that I've never been able to see before. I just watched the Coachella video and my favorite part was being able to see the artists up close while also being able to see what the audience looks from the artist's point of view. Check it out: https://youtu.be/1mZQEfECluE?t=55s

So I found an even cooler story--> 6×9: A virtual experience of solitary confinement | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2016/apr/27/6x9-a-virtual-experience-of-solitary-confinement)

do you need a special app to view this on a phone? On my windows phone I can't look around, I just get the entire fixed frame.



You need to view using the YouTube app. And only the YouTube version of the video works as VR. As you know, you have to also choose the resolution (HD or 4K); the default for VR seems always the worst.

There are plenty of lousy soft videos from regular cameras. I can only vouch for my campus 360 tour test video (not because of its art) as maximizing the potential resolution at every step (actually it could be better as the Kodak stitching software now permits merging 360 clips without re-compression - my YouTube version was put together using PD14, which recompressed and also slightly changed the resolution).

Would this work for YouTube VR video on Windows phones? InMind VR brings virtual reality to Windows Phone, with the help of Google Cardboard - WMPoweruser (http://mspoweruser.com/google-cardboard-comes-to-windows-phone/)

You need to view using the YouTube app. And only the YouTube version of the video works as VR.

Can you post a link to that? I can only find paying options for 360vr on a windows phone.

It doesn't look like there's an official YouTube app on the Windows phone. At the very least, you can pan around the video via the desktop by clicking and dragging.

Why don't the big boys (Google and Microsoft) play well together?

Vimeo flat version:

Kodak 360 4K 360 VR Time-Lapse Video: Clouds on Kite Hill on Vimeo

Select 4K.

YouTube VR version (look up and around at the clouds):

https://youtu.be/X6zsmobZInY

Select 4K.

Settings: 2-second interval, fixed WB. Each camera makes a 4K 30p video; these are stitched in the software just like regular videos.

Fukushima (ES) | Video 360 VR | EL PA�S Semanal - YouTube

El Pais, a leading Spanish newspaper, has started showing 360 mini doc videos. The first is about Fukushima.

El Pais, a leading Spanish newspaper, has started showing 360 mini doc videos.



Although this is a bit more interesting way to apply 360vr in documentaries I got dizzy by turning around at every single shot and I stopped watching it before it reached halfway the film. I still much prefer watching something like this where you get more longer continuous shots:
https://youtu.be/lj1E-Gc5RyQ

I still much prefer watching something like this where you get more longer continuous shots:


I agree. The whole point is to be able to look around. If the shots are quick, there is no time, or you have to rush. No fun at all. 360 VR needs long takes for leisurely exploration of the whole scene.

I disagree that action sports with fast movements of the camera is an ideal use for 360 VR, as this in part demonstrates.

Mark:

Thanks for posting your 360 videos, they are very interesting to me as someone who is dipping their toes into VR for the studios. Does your Kodak stitching software work as a plug-in or a stand alone? PC or Mac or both? Have you viewed your footage with the Rift or any other higher end headset?

Also, how come there is a black doughnut at the top and bottom in your school campus VR? Doesn't the Kodak app cover those two holes?

Mark:

Thanks for posting your 360 videos, they are very interesting to me as someone who is dipping their toes into VR for the studios. Does your Kodak stitching software work as a plug-in or a stand alone? PC or Mac or both? Have you viewed your footage with the Rift or any other higher end headset?

Also, how come there is a black doughnut at the top and bottom in your school campus VR? Doesn't the Kodak app cover those two holes?

The stitching software is standalone, and there is both a mac and a pc version.

The black doughnut hole is there because there was no way in the Kodak program when I made the video to merge the stitched clips. And the program I used to merge the clips could not set the correct resolution 3840x1920 for Youtube, so you get the holes. Now (update) the Kodak software not only stitches each clip but you can combine stitched clips *losslessly* at the correct resolution. I should redo the YouTube one (the original Vimeo version was redone and replaced).

I have viewed them so far, besides on phones and computers directly, using the Samsung Gear VR.

https://youtu.be/RbS6EgvsLoc

No holes.

Thanks Mark. The quality of your video on the Vimeo clip is encouraging if that is roughly what you would see when viewing with headsets. The YouTube VR engine, to me, looks like crap, no matter what the input and unfortunately this is how almost all viewers will view VR content. It's soft and low resolution looking with what looks like a blur vignette but until the YouTube quality improves, that's what we are stuck with. I have to say, if anyone had your Kodak rig in stock, I think I would buy one, just to experiment with. Unfortunately, we are leaving in a few weeks for the big VR shoot and I don't think anyone will have the Kodak in stock, although I have not checked everyone but Amazon, B&H and Adorama are back ordered. The idea of wrangling ten Go Pros at once, ten sets of cards, making sure that the Go Pro remote triggers all ten cameras each time is not appealing to me at all but that's what it looks like we will have to do. I am assuming that ten 1440 60p 4x3 videos, stitched together, will look decent, I hope. The idea of stitching together two videos is a lot more appealing, just one seam. The Go Pro VR engine, which can be viewed on Facebook, at least, seems to be clearer and sharper than the YouTube engine. https://www.facebook.com/gopro/videos/10153776997236919/

Also, the rental house has told us the reason for us to rent the ten camera Go Pro rig over the six camera is the stitching point and FOV on the six camera unit means that there are "holes" where is talent is closer than four feet to the rig, all or parts of them will not be recorded. With the ten camera rig, talent closer than four feet from the array will be easily visible and no distorted. What about the Kodak rig? When you are, say, two feet from the array, does the rig see all of you and could that shot be used or do parts of you distort or disappear when closer to four feet from the rig?

If you are in the US, you can order the Kodak dual kit from:

https://store.mypixpro.com/?route=product/product&path=70&product_id=76

They will ship same day.

I have not tested the subject closeness issue. Given the 235-degrees for each lens, there is plenty of overlap across cameras for 360 stitching.

I am very curious how this Kodak footage will compare to the footage from the six and ten camera Go Pro rigs. If we are shooting with more Go Pros, at 1440 60p per camera, that should mean each slice of the VR image should be higher resolution than the overall image from this Kodak, correct? OTOH, we have all experienced the sub-par resolution and softness of the YouTube VR encoder. From what I have seen, almost anything shot on any resolution comes out on YouTube looking like crap. So I am wondering if renting the 6 camera and 10 camera Go Pro rigs at $2,700.00 per week and $3,600.00 per week is worth it, at this point in time, if our client's primary audience will view it on YouTube mainly? If we shot with the Kodak, we would use the Kodak software to stitch the footage as you have, correct? What about editing it and adding in the "blinks"? Do you end up with a 4k H264 QT or what is the end output from the stitching software? Can that file then be edited in FCP X and or Adobe CC Premier? Which plug-ins would be necessary at that point with FCP X or Premiere? The Dashwood plug-in or ?? Just trying to see what the actual workflow would be from footage from this Kodak for a professional project? I take it the stitching is pretty simple? Is it render heavy?

Sorry for so many questions, but when I look at your Vimeo clip, I can see that quality is decent, whereas the quality in the YouTube VR clip looks terrible. That leads me to believe that when viewed through a decent VR headset, the quality would look decent, pretty close to the Vimeo clip as far as sharpness, colors and dynamic range? Thanks for any suggestions or light you can shed on this. Client wants VR and we are planning on renting the Go Pro Professional 6 and 10 camera rigs to shoot but for travel, simplicity and ease of use, the Kodak is appealing. I just can't determine of the quality would be good enough for a paying client or if we should just forget the Kodak and rent the much more expensive and complex rigs. I know for our client, their main concern for the VR is social media, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I don't know if they will want to monetize the VR content or merely use it to build a buzz about the show.

"I am very curious how this Kodak footage will compare to the footage from the six and ten camera Go Pro rigs. If we are shooting with more Go Pros, at 1440 60p per camera, that should mean each slice of the VR image should be higher resolution than the overall image from this Kodak, correct?"

Correct.

"OTOH, we have all experienced the sub-par resolution and softness of the YouTube VR encoder. From what I have seen, almost anything shot on any resolution comes out on YouTube looking like crap. So I am wondering if renting the 6 camera and 10 camera Go Pro rigs at $2,700.00 per week and $3,600.00 per week is worth it, at this point in time, if our client's primary audience will view it on YouTube mainly?"

I have not seen a GoPro multi-camera rig VR on YouTube that looked much different than my Kodak ones in terms of resolution (I use my videos in comparison, as I know mine have the best resolution possible).

"If we shot with the Kodak, we would use the Kodak software to stitch the footage as you have, correct?"

Correct.

"What about editing it and adding in the "blinks"? Do you end up with a 4k H264 QT or what is the end output from the stitching software?"

The output file is a 3840x1920 MP4 (H264) video at 60 Mbps. It is the required resolution for YouTube VR (no doughnut holes). You can also merge together all the stitched clips losslessly to produce a multi-clip MP4 H264 3840x1920 video file (60 Mbps)

"Can that file then be edited in FCP X and or Adobe CC Premier?"

It is a standard H264 MP4 video file. You just have to be sure to retain the 3840x1920 aspect ratio. You can download my original (Kodak-software produced) video file from Vimeo to test it out.

There is no special plug-in needed. It is a standard file - you can grade it or whatever.

"Which plug-ins would be necessary at that point with FCP X or Premiere? The Dashwood plug-in or ?? Just trying to see what the actual workflow would be from footage from this Kodak for a professional project?"

I don't use FCP X or Premiere. I have used Resolve, Vegas Pro, PowerDirector, TMPENgc.

"I take it the stitching is pretty simple? Is it render heavy?"

It is simple to use, but sophisticated underneath. It is slow to render.

"Sorry for so many questions, but when I look at your Vimeo clip, I can see that quality is decent, whereas the quality in the YouTube VR clip looks terrible. That leads me to believe that when viewed through a decent VR headset, the quality would look decent, pretty close to the Vimeo clip as far as sharpness, colors and dynamic range? Thanks for any suggestions or light you can shed on this. Client wants VR and we are planning on renting the Go Pro Professional 6 and 10 camera rigs to shoot but for travel, simplicity and ease of use, the Kodak is appealing. I just can't determine of the quality would be good enough for a paying client or if we should just forget the Kodak and rent the much more expensive and complex rigs. I know for our client, their main concern for the VR is social media, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I don't know if they will want to monetize the VR content or merely use it to build a buzz about the show."

If you can find a GoPro rig-produced VR video on YouTube that you think looks much better point us to it. Also if there is some test I can run with the Kodak rig, I may be able to do that.

The only things I can find that look better THAN YouTube would be the GoPro "Trees" video when viewed on Facebook through the Go Pro/Facbook VR engine. It looks clearer than YouTube, although it is still soft and looks somewhat low resolution still. Also, the quality of the Google Stories "Help" piece, when viewed through the Google Stories app on my iPhone 5S is exceptional, it looks crystal clear. If you haven't already, download the app and watch "Help", you'll be impressed. That piece was shot on a six camera RED Dragon rig on a cable cam on a green screen stage so it is all composited. I have yet to find any VR on YouTube that looks any better than your material, that's what is depressing about it, I don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars in rentals and fly halfway across the world to shoot VR that looks like bad VHS on YouTube. Must investigate different social media options with the client (studio who obviously has lots of connections with the large social media companies) to see if this project can somehow be exhibited in a format that looks better than YouTube VR.

Might be fun to buy one of these Kodak systems just to compare with the Go Pro ten camera system though. The material we will be shooting, some of it is BTS on the filming of a television show and some of it is scripted with talent on the show's sets so it should be a good test of what it possible with VR at this point. The pieces on set are designed for full 360 although some lights/grip from their grid will be visible up at the top as the set was built for normal shooting.

My experience in VR still photography suggests that a 10-camera GoPro rig will have much more parallax error than the Kodak360. In theory, that predicts that the Kodak will be able to successfully stitch subjects that are much closer to the camera array.

Any experience of this? How does the Kodak system do at various subject distances?

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, not so much!"

Another lesson from the VR stills experience is that you WANT near and far in your compositions. I've shot stills in some amazing places, but, foreground is as important as background.

Some terminology: the hole at the top (if present) is at the Zenith. The one at the bottom is at the Nadir. In VR stills we can patch the Nadir, often with an extra shot that was carefully hand-held. Some people like to put their logo there. It's a bit of a trick in either case, since the equirectangular image format is so distorted at the nadir. The right software makes it easy. Does Kodak's offer nadir patching?

My experience in VR still photography suggests that a 10-camera GoPro rig will have much more parallax error than the Kodak360. In theory, that predicts that the Kodak will be able to successfully stitch subjects that are much closer to the camera array.

Any experience of this? How does the Kodak system do at various subject distances?

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, not so much!"

Another lesson from the VR stills experience is that you WANT near and far in your compositions. I've shot stills in some amazing places, but, foreground is as important as background.

Some terminology: the hole at the top (if present) is at the Zenith. The one at the bottom is at the Nadir. In VR stills we can patch the Nadir, often with an extra shot that was carefully hand-held. Some people like to put their logo there. It's a bit of a trick in either case, since the equirectangular image format is so distorted at the nadir. The right software makes it easy. Does Kodak's offer nadir patching?

This is very interesting info, and I may do some tests on close subject distance with the Kodak rig.

The Kodak stitching software results in videos that have no hole in either the Zenith or the Nadir. For example:

https://youtu.be/RbS6EgvsLoc

Be sure to select 4K.

So there is no patching tool.

In your last video I cannot see you standing anywhere, do you hide and watch the camera to be sure no-one runs off with it? It sounds like a silly question but since the camera records all around you, you as a cameraman cannot be standing next to it as you don't want people to look right into your face when they look around, I can't see this working well in more crowded places, the tripod and camera look light enough for someone to steal it when it's recording unattended.

In your last video I cannot see you standing anywhere, do you hide and watch the camera to be sure no-one runs off with it? It sounds like a silly question but since the camera records all around you, you as a cameraman cannot be standing next to it as you don't want people to look right into your face when they look around, I can't see this working well in more crowded places, the tripod and camera look light enough for someone to steal it when it's recording unattended.

I do not appear in any of the 360 videos I posted. Yup, I hide and watch. I was worried that the requirement of having a hiding place would crimp location choice, but it turns out not to. I've got lots of cut clip parts of me walking from and to the camera in 360 VR! With the wireless rf remote (included) you can start and stop the recording (and turn off and on the camera) from at least 50 feet. I have not tested how long the reach is.

Most people I think would believe that the camera is being monitored and not just left around. And the rig is large enough (though very light) so taking it would be conspicuous. I have observed people coming up to the rig and inspecting it and then walking away. Another reason not to invest $5,000+ in a VR rig...

For the recently posted Campus Tour clip, I am having some trouble viewing correctly.

When I click on the vid, it does open and plays, however, it just play stretched out or flat.

I am on an iphone5 with Safari browser if that matters, and I have working YouTube app.

I know my phone can view other 360 vids properly, as I can view them in Facebook, YouTube, etc.

Any suggestions?

I do not appear in any of the 360 videos I posted. Yup, I hide and watch. I was worried that the requirement of having a hiding place would crimp location choice, but it turns out not to. I've got lots of cut clip parts of me walking from and to the camera in 360 VR! With the wireless rf remote (included) you can start and stop the recording (and turn off and on the camera) from at least 50 feet. I have not tested how long the reach is.

Most people I think would believe that the camera is being monitored and not just left around. And the rig is large enough (though very light) so taking it would be conspicuous. I have observed people coming up to the rig and inspecting it and then walking away. Another reason not to invest $5,000+ in a VR rig...

For the recently posted Campus Tour clip, I am having some trouble viewing correctly.

When I click on the vid, it does open and plays, however, it just play stretched out or flat.

I am on an iphone5 with Safari browser if that matters, and I have working YouTube app.

I know my phone can view other 360 vids properly, as I can view them in Facebook, YouTube, etc.

Any suggestions?

The video is 100% compliant with the YouTube 360 specs (and I think with Facebook 360 as well).

If I click on the video (YouTube version) in the embedded frame in this thread it allows me, with my mouse, to scroll around 360 degrees as it plays, viewing with the Edge Browser or with Chrome. If I view the video with the YouTube app on my Samsung Galaxy S7 I can, by moving the phone up, down and around, view the full 360 degrees as the video plays. If I click the goggles icon, I can view the video using my Samsung Gear VR, moving around the scenes with my eyes. Works perfectly.

Are you sure you are clicking on the YouTube and not the Vimeo version? Are you viewing the YouTube version with the YouTube app? I do not have an iPhone, but operating system is not relevant if you view using the YouTube app, but I can't check.

The Campus Tour 360 Video has two close encounters that enable judging how close subjects can get. In both cases the subjects get very close (less than 2-3 feet) right at the stitching area.

At 5:38 in a man walks quickly right by the rig; he passes less than 2-3 feet from the camera at the part where stitching must take place. You can see what happens; there is only a very slight, brief artifact. You have to make sure you are looking at the right part of the scene (he comes from behind the camera and walks by to the camera's left).

At 9:45 a group of men come within 2 feet of the cameras and stop and stare and then go on, again at a stitching point. They come from behind the camera and to the left. There is no artifacting at all.

As far as the viewing issue, I have figured some things out that maybe helpful in regards to viewing issues on an iPhone. I recently purchased an sp360 4K, and can see this issue being a confusing problem for some customers.

I was on your YT link, not the Vimeo. When I click on the red arrow play button inside the video, that is when the video opens and just starts playing flat.

So I clicked on the curved arrow in upper right, and it shows some choices. Clicking on the three dots opens a window asking if to open the vid in YT app. Perfect playback.

I also happened to click on the title above the video window (YouTube (Short URL). Same as above, opens a small window asking if to open in YT app. Plays fine.

So your vid is fine, just a little hassle to auto play on iPhone I guess. I wonder what the difference in the code is between these three choices. And if there is a way to force the YT app to open rather than going through the extra steps. Massive confusion to viewers on iPhone if not, unlike the non-issue of your android (don't have one to test).